Treatment Effect Estimation using Invariant Risk Minimization

Inferring causal individual treatment effect (ITE) from observational data is a challenging problem whose difficulty is exacerbated by the presence of treatment assignment bias. In this work, we propose a new way to estimate the ITE using the domain generalization framework of invariant risk minimization (IRM). IRM uses data from multiple domains, learns predictors that do not exploit spurious domain-dependent factors, and generalizes better to unseen domains. We propose an IRM-based ITE estimator aimed at tackling treatment assignment bias when there is little support overlap between the control group and the treatment group. We accomplish this by creating diversity: given a single dataset, we split the data into multiple domains artificially. These diverse domains are then exploited by IRM to more effectively generalize regression-based models to data regions that lack support overlap. We show gains over classical regression approaches to ITE estimation in settings when support mismatch is more pronounced.

Learning to Initialize Gradient Descent Using Gradient Descent

Non-convex optimization problems are challenging to solve; the success and computational expense of a gradient descent algorithm or variant depend heavily on the initialization strategy. Often, either random initialization is used or initialization rules are carefully designed by exploiting the nature of the problem class. As a simple alternative to hand-crafted initialization rules, we propose an approach for learning "good" initialization rules from previous solutions. We provide theoretical guarantees that establish conditions that are sufficient in all cases and also necessary in some under which our approach performs better than random initialization. We apply our methodology to various non-convex problems such as generating adversarial examples, generating post hoc explanations for black-box machine learning models, and allocating communication spectrum, and show consistent gains over other initialization techniques.

Empirical or Invariant Risk Minimization? A Sample Complexity Perspective

Recently, invariant risk minimization (IRM) was proposed as a promising solution to address out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. However, it is unclear when IRM should be preferred over the widely-employed empirical risk minimization (ERM) framework. In this work, we analyze both these frameworks from the perspective of sample complexity, thus taking a firm step towards answering this important question. We find that depending on the type of data generation mechanism, the two approaches might have very different finite sample and asymptotic behavior. For example, in the covariate shift setting we see that the two approaches not only arrive at the same asymptotic solution, but also have similar finite sample behavior with no clear winner. For other distribution shifts such as those involving confounders or anti-causal variables, however, the two approaches arrive at different asymptotic solutions where IRM is guaranteed to be close to the desired OOD solutions in the finite sample regime, while ERM is biased even asymptotically. We further investigate how different factors -- the number of environments, complexity of the model, and IRM penalty weight -- impact the sample complexity of IRM in relation to its distance from the OOD solutions

Linear Regression Games: Convergence Guarantees to Approximate Out-of-Distribution Solutions

Recently, invariant risk minimization (IRM) (Arjovsky et al.) was proposed as a promising solution to address out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. In Ahuja et al., it was shown that solving for the Nash equilibria of a new class of "ensemble-games" is equivalent to solving IRM. In this work, we extend the framework in Ahuja et al. for linear regressions by projecting the ensemble-game on an $\ell_{\infty}$ ball. We show that such projections help achieve non-trivial OOD guarantees despite not achieving perfect invariance. For linear models with confounders, we prove that Nash equilibria of these games are closer to the ideal OOD solutions than the standard empirical risk minimization (ERM) and we also provide learning algorithms that provably converge to these Nash Equilibria. Empirical comparisons of the proposed approach with the state-of-the-art show consistent gains in achieving OOD solutions in several settings involving anti-causal variables and confounders.

Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making

Several strands of research have aimed to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence (AI) and human decision-makers in AI-assisted decision-making, where humans are the consumers of AI model predictions and the ultimate decision-makers in high-stakes applications. However, people's perception and understanding is often distorted by their cognitive biases, like confirmation bias, anchoring bias, availability bias, to name a few. In this work, we use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making system and mitigate their negative effects. To this end, we mathematically model cognitive biases and provide a general framework through which researchers and practitioners can understand the interplay between cognitive biases and human-AI accuracy. We then focus on anchoring bias, a bias commonly witnessed in human-AI partnerships. We devise a cognitive science-driven, time-based approach to de-anchoring. A user experiment shows the effectiveness of this approach in human-AI collaborative decision-making. Using the results from this first experiment, we design a time allocation strategy for a resource constrained setting so as to achieve optimal human-AI collaboration under some assumptions. A second user study shows that our time allocation strategy can effectively debias the human when the AI model has low confidence and is incorrect.

Invariant Risk Minimization Games

The standard risk minimization paradigm of machine learning is brittle when operating in environments whose test distributions are different from the training distribution due to spurious correlations. Training on data from many environments and finding invariant predictors reduces the effect of spurious features by concentrating models on features that have a causal relationship with the outcome. In this work, we pose such invariant risk minimization as finding the Nash equilibrium of an ensemble game among several environments. By doing so, we develop a simple training algorithm that uses best response dynamics and, in our experiments, yields similar or better empirical accuracy with much lower variance than the challenging bi-level optimization problem of Arjovsky et al. (2019). One key theoretical contribution is showing that the set of Nash equilibria for the proposed game are equivalent to the set of invariant predictors for any finite number of environments, even with nonlinear classifiers and transformations. As a result, our method also retains the generalization guarantees to a large set of environments shown in Arjovsky et al. (2019). The proposed algorithm adds to the collection of successful game-theoretic machine learning algorithms such as generative adversarial networks.

Model Agnostic Multilevel Explanations

In recent years, post-hoc local instance-level and global dataset-level explainability of black-box models has received a lot of attention. Much less attention has been given to obtaining insights at intermediate or group levels, which is a need outlined in recent works that study the challenges in realizing the guidelines in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In this paper, we propose a meta-method that, given a typical local explainability method, can build a multilevel explanation tree. The leaves of this tree correspond to the local explanations, the root corresponds to the global explanation, and intermediate levels correspond to explanations for groups of data points that it automatically clusters. The method can also leverage side information, where users can specify points for which they may want the explanations to be similar. We argue that such a multilevel structure can also be an effective form of communication, where one could obtain few explanations that characterize the entire dataset by considering an appropriate level in our explanation tree. Explanations for novel test points can be cost-efficiently obtained by associating them with the closest training points. When the local explainability technique is generalized additive (viz. LIME, GAMs), we develop a fast approximate algorithm for building the multilevel tree and study its convergence behavior. We validate the effectiveness of the proposed technique based on two human studies -- one with experts and the other with non-expert users -- on real world datasets, and show that we produce high fidelity sparse explanations on several other public datasets.

Learning Global Transparent Models from Local Contrastive Explanations

There is a rich and growing literature on producing local point wise contrastive/counterfactual explanations for complex models. These methods highlight what is important to justify the classification and/or produce a contrast point that alters the final classification. Other works try to build globally interpretable models like decision trees and rule lists directly by efficient model search using the data or by transferring information from a complex model using distillation-like methods. Although these interpretable global models can be useful, they may not be consistent with local explanations from a specific complex model of choice. In this work, we explore the question: Can we produce a transparent global model that is consistent with/derivable from local explanations? Based on a key insight we provide a novel method where every local contrastive/counterfactual explanation can be turned into a Boolean feature. These Boolean features are sparse conjunctions of binarized features. The dataset thus constructed is consistent with local explanations by design and one can train an interpretable model like a decision tree on it. We note that this approach strictly loses information due to reliance only on sparse local explanations, nonetheless, we demonstrate empirically that in many cases it can still be competitive with respect to the complex model's performance and also other methods that learn directly from the original dataset. Our approach also provides an avenue to benchmark local explanation methods in a quantitative manner.

One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms make further inroads into society, calls are increasing from multiple stakeholders for these algorithms to explain their outputs. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, present different requirements for explanations. Toward addressing these needs, we introduce AI Explainability 360 (http://aix360.mybluemix.net/), an open-source software toolkit featuring eight diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. Equally important, we provide a taxonomy to help entities requiring explanations to navigate the space of explanation methods, not only those in the toolkit but also in the broader literature on explainability. For data scientists and other users of the toolkit, we have implemented an extensible software architecture that organizes methods according to their place in the AI modeling pipeline. We also discuss enhancements to bring research innovations closer to consumers of explanations, ranging from simplified, more accessible versions of algorithms, to tutorials and an interactive web demo to introduce AI explainability to different audiences and application domains. Together, our toolkit and taxonomy can help identify gaps where more explainability methods are needed and provide a platform to incorporate them as they are developed.